Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Iowa

Theresa Greenfield’s page

It seems unfair for Joni Ernst to have a page, even if she’s a sitting senator. People should be able to learn about both candidates and Greenfield is now the Democratic nominee. Smith0124 (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but if she currently does not have a page, there is simply no reason to link it back to the same article, which is a violation of MOS:CIRCULAR. VietPride10 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Smith0124. Have posted further remarks at the bottom of this talk page. Greenfield clearly meets the threshold of notability and the draft article is well-sourced and well-written. An editor with the ability to grant Greenfield a full article should change this ASAP. Baseballtom (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (edited for clarity 18:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

• Of 69 major party Senate nominees this cycle, 61 have Wikipedia pages, including a write-in candidate with no chance (Preston Love Jr.). However, Theresa Greenfield, whose race is a tossup and could determine Senate control, does not have one. The notability guidelines are applied in a way that is completely arbitrary. This is a disgrace. Narayansg (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I don't have anything new to say, but it's *outrageous* that Theresa Greenfield does not have her own Wikipedia page. FiveThirtyEight says she has a 54% chance of becoming a senator, and every senator has a (nonstub) Wikipedia page! Perhaps before she won the primary, when it looked like Ernst would be easily reelected, she wasn't notable enough, but now she is. Can *someone* with the right permissions let this happen? 73.241.189.0 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Theresa Greenfield.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

To insert a new poll into the 'Polling' section of the page. Reliable source included!! Darrenmonaghan12 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What is this new poll you want included? @Darrenmonaghan12: Seagull123 Φ 15:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

https://states.aarp.org/iowa/2020-election-poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmonaghan12 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Theresa Greenfield

Copying my remarks from the talk on the redirect for Theresa Greenfield, who currently does not have a page. The race is one of the closest in the country and could determine the balance of the Senate. Greenfield is now a nationally known public figure and the draft article is thorough and well-sourced. Moreover, having a full Wikipedia article for the incumbent while blocking a very well-written and edited one for the viable challenger creates an unfortunate, inadvertent platform bias, in which readers can only get vital information about the incumbent. Also worth noting that the article became a redirect when Greenfield was just a candidate for the primary. Now that she is the Democratic nominee in a contested race, she has undeniably acquired a higher level of notability that clears Wikipedia's threshold by a significant margin. This should be changed ASAP and the draft article for Greenfield should become a Wikipedia article immediately. Baseballtom (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield. Discussion resulted in a redirect, including three deletion reviews. She'll get a page if she wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Wikipedia operates on consensus. There is a clear consensus on this page that Theresa Greenfield is notable. She clearly has met the general notability guidelines, by winning her primary. What is your motivation for denying her an article? Narayansg (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Request received to merge articles: Theresa Greenfield into 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa; dated: {October/2020}. Proposer's Rationale: {Though there's been a lot of discussion whether Greenfield is notable, she is an unelected candidate who is only notable in the context of the election that she is running in, which is an upcoming election. We have precedent a mile long that political candidates for office, who are only notable for being candidates, generally lack notability, and we have a general precedent that articles on candidates for upcoming elections generally fail WP:NPOL, WP:BIO1E, WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, and the WP:10YT. It will be the same for Greenfield if she loses. I have not started another AfD since that will be very contentious - merge discussions take longer and we will know if she has won or lost by the time it has come to close this. But, simply put, if she loses, she does not have enduring notability outside of the election, and can be adequately covered in the article about the event.}. Discuss here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• This debate just concluded at WP:AN. It should not be immediately re-opened here. See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The closure specifically noted that it could be nominated at AfD, which I opted not to do. I strongly disagree with trying to build consensus on content through AN, as I missed that part of the discussion, and I've suggested a merger specifically because that process takes longer than an AfD and should be less contentious. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• A merge discussion after months of bureaucratic nonsense is not at all productive. If she loses, an AfD should result in deletion or a (hopefully WP:SALTed) redirect. For the next 13 days, breathe deeply. KidAd talk 22:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from, as notability isn't temporary. In any event, if "the merger is specifically predicated on whether she wins or loses", why start the discussion before we know whether she wins or loses? ST47 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ST47: Because the technically correct course of action here would be to keep the information about her on the page of the election, but you noted there's a consensus that WP:GNG is passed. Unfortunately that doesn't really matter, since passing WP:GNG is not the be-all end-all as to whether someone has lasting notability - there are plenty of failed candidates who disappear after the election that we could probably technically write articles on and don't, but there seems to be a consensus (possibly by US readers?) that she is notable enough for a page for the next two weeks, and I wanted to respect that. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  As ST47 just said, notability is not temporary. It's perhaps worth additionally noting that Greenfield has been getting significant coverage since at least 2018... :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm well aware about notability. We typically delete failed candidates because their notability was in fact temporary, and they can be covered elsewhere per WP:BIO1E. We recently looked back 10 years at failed senate candidates without articles and found no issues. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Per the WP:AN close, If users believe that the current version of the article is still unsuitable, then the normal process would be to nominate it at WP:AFD. I'm not saying that – if she does not win her election on November 3 – I will nominate the page for deletion. I'm saying that if she loses, the page may be more likely to face deletion. As evident from this immediate merge discussion, some users will not be satisfied until the page no longer exists. I think another AfD is inevitable if she loses. KidAd talk 22:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

In the poll section for the Emerson Poll conducted on October 19-21, they gave Joni Ernst 51% and not the correct 46% and gave Theresa Greenfield 45% to her 46%. This is a problem because the poll was inputted into Wikipedia incorrectly. Blong21 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

General Election

It should be mentioned about the end result where Joni Ernst won carrying 91 out of the 99 counties, while Theresa Greenfield only carried eight of the counties, mainly in urban ones like Polk, Johnson, Linn, and Scott counties for instance, and that Joni Ernst had approximately 110,000 votes ahead of Theresa Greenfield in an approximately 6.5-7% margin, making it a moderate victory for the incumbent. --FrancineFan3883 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Congressional district map

The 1,2, and 3 are 40-50% and the 4 is 60-70%

Lonewolef1 (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)